ed Zao Pr srs S80 es See Se foum ‘TATE OF WEHGAN ERSENO: i “Novo anc SUMMONS e a x | 958 720 W. Chshol SuteLAlenk Michigan 497072653 aL BTS, Vicor Masromars (PS) ¢ Kevin) Rally (14540) OREN. eign Ave, Soin pte Check i in vi a youd pv ym ners Gab sl nih Your Sean a ‘rena cn try ase erm HC) Tear sib creator a Domestc Relations Case (7ither ae no pending or resoed cases within thereon of he fmt ison of the cat cout nohing te fay or {amily members fhe person(s) who at the suet ofthe compar. [CThere sone or mate pendng orrsshved cases within usin ofthe family vision ofthe Seu cout voy the ami or omymembe' othe person) who ar the sujet of he compat Alached is a completed case nveony {dorm MC 21 at thove cases, Cte untrown thar re pedingoresoved cases wiin he juteicin of he family dsion othe cial court nving ‘the family ox aray memrs ofthe persone) wh are he sje fe compliant. cv case [nse business case nich al or par of he acon nudes a business ox commercial dsute under MCI. 00.696. [ZIMDNNS anda conrad heath plan may have argo recover expenses ins case ceri hat noice and cory af he complain wil be povided o HORS and (apple) te conectad heath plan n accordance wth MCL. 400 "9. [mere no other pending o resaed Gi seen arng out ofthe se Vansacon or occurence at sagen the compat. [Div acon betwaan tes pares or ote pare arising out ofthe transaction or occurence alegedin the compli hat been previous fied a Clos cour, court whore ‘awae given cate number ond saan to ge ‘tne action Cremsine sno onger pending Sumone sein ctey ut o (sumone) NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: nh name ofthe peopl ofthe Sate of Michio you ar notes 1 ou em bong sues J YSu ae A Dav aterrecing the surmons and apy of he completo ea writen anewer wih the cout nd reels SSpy ane cer arty or ake ober awl acon with he cour 25 day ou were serve by al or yor were SSrvd ode th sit) 2.175 se at wer rie oer acton win the ie towed dpment maybe elred agains you forthe relat ‘hmandeain ne camplar. 4. tyoutaue spec sezenmodatons ous the court because ofa aby oiyou require foreign anguae tweet {Chaisybu uly priate n cour proceeding, posse canac the cout mmedltal fo ake arenes 3 ies 22 018 3 RESETS ET Sea coe eet (19) SUMMONS er omen MER 2246, MOR MER 10. M205“SOMONE Som ett —_=X TOPROCENS SERVER: Youu ew SO SRST a ra ar erg Re patie tseds ard smusyal naraee eae eae ae ee Seiee csr cats Nace od ee ase ae [CERTIACATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE / NONSERVICE TI OFFICER CERTIFICATE OR TD AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS SERVER | cent tat! am sett. deputy sec, ball, appoited Being fs cu sworn, state hat ama epalycompeten [our oie: or atrnay ora pry (CR 2 OMAN. ut and | an ta party or an offer ofa caporate lsat pan nt a ary MCR 2 103(A) end et etenreured (51 served 2ersonay a copy fhe surmons and complain (Ch served 3y episod of certed mal copy o return ect atached) a copy of he sunmens and compan, 10 rR RR RR RSE on te defendant) ae aa a (China pewonsy aterpted to serve te summons and compl ogeter wit sy tachment, nthe folowing delendan) and naveboon unable lo compins sores me aT aa Dar oe | declare unter he penis of peru tat spoof of src has ban axamined by m best of my mormation, nowedge and bel! Warten Fes ——] ee 5 iE SST aa | Fe TOMAS) Rae ls f : = ‘Subscribed an ewe before mean Coury, Michigan. ee aes My commision expe = Signatur: aR BE Notay pubs, Sate of Michigan, County ot. (ACRNOWLEDGWENT OF SERVICE "acknowledge that nave eeive servic Hs Burmons and Spas Topetier wih SE eee rs lara‘STATE OF MICHIGAN TN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALPENA TERRY KING, Qse Pini SHERIFF STEVEN KIELSIZEWSKI, ALPENA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT oot of 2zamn ol qa Defendant. ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM VICTOR J. MASTROMARCO, JR, (P34554) KEVIN J. KELLY (P74546) Attomeys for PlaintifT 1024 N. Michigan Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48602 (989) 752-1414 ! ‘Theris no ote pending of esoved ci action arising out of these tansaton or occurences lege nthe Compl PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY & DEMAND FOR PRETRIAI ENCE NOW COMES the PI iff, TERRY KING, by und through his attorneys, THE MASTROMARCO FIRM, and hereby complains against Defendant, SHERIFF STEVEN KIELSIZEWSKI, stating more fully as follows: (COMMON ALLEGATIONS 1, That Plaintiff at all times material hereto, is a resident of the County of Alpena, State of Michigan, Il ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 124 N. Michigan Avene |Sagnaw, Michigan 48602 (989) 752-8142. ‘That the Defendant Sheriff Steven Kielsizewski (hereinafter referred to as Kielsizewski) is the Sheriff of Alpena County and is the properly named Defendant in this matter and case. 4, That Plaintitt began his long career with the Alpena County Sheriff's Department in August of 1997 when he began as a Deputy Sheriff, Because of Plaintif"s skills, he was in charge of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (D.A.RE.) ‘where he would teach children in grade school and high school 5. That Plaintiff's job duties also extended to marine safety. 6. In fact, Plaintiff in order to administer the program, had \v be licensed and did obtain his licens, through education while an employee of the Sheriff's Department. 7, That in fact, and in approximately 2011, the present Sheriff Steven Kielsizewski was elected It was subsequent thereto, that Plaintiff was promoted by Kielsizewski to Undersherlff 8. That in early June 2018, and while the Plaintiff was inthe otfice of Judge Mack, Plaintiff had a discussion with Judge Mack concerning a company that places Court Ordered tethers on individuals. 9. ‘That as noted in Exhibit 1 attached, at paragraph 2. the Defendant Sheriff is situation as a reason for Plaintiff's termination. 10, That during the conversation in early June of 2018 with Judge Mack, Plaintiff expressed concern that individuals who had been brought back to jail on other 2 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 124 N. Michigan Avenue| Sain, Michigan 48602 (89) 752-1414Violations were not being monitored by a particular bail bonds company. 11, “That Paints concems stemmed from the fat that his department was not being notified by anyone of violations, and no parameters were being set forthe inmates that were being placed on the tether program. 12. That examples were given by Plaintiff to the Judge where an inmate had stated that he was able to circumvent the tether by placing tin foil around the tether and actually driving down State to pick up drugs. 13, That said report to the Judge was a protected activity since the Plaintiff was scting inthe best interest of the community for purposes of safety and was reporting to a aves meee Tie cig nit erly eae LOT og al tet eae ie ee cer rien 15 Tht Deo hi Pai at eM arena Soy eae eee peony ss ee ancien 16. ‘That Mr. Seguin is no longer an employee of the Sheritt's Department and ooh 10. Tat subsea tht, nd November of 2018, te Pint was salsa ada ne cetera Unteniec. er ee ore ee ane es ee reason utilized hy the Defendant Sheriff to terminate Plaintiff's employment, See, 3 “THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avene| Sapna, Michigan 48602 | (989 752-1414Exhibit | at paragraph 3. 19, That subsequently, Plaintiff overheard the same Phil Seguin, again « non- certified former police officer, utilize the county radio system in the county police cars. 20, That furthermore, Seguin was driving a vehicle with red and blue flashing lights, making it appear that he was driving a police vehicle. 21, That Plaintiff reported this tothe 911 director’ office. 22, That the director atthe time was Burt Francesco, who upon information and belief will testify that in fact the Plaintiff di report this information to him. 23, That 911 is a public body. 24, That furthermore, Lt. Grimshaw overheard Seguin ut ing, improperly and illegally a police radio, and brought the statute which was being violated to the attention of the Defendant Sheriff. 25. Infuriated, the Defendant Sheriff pulled the Plaintif into his office, pointed his finger at the Plaintiff, and sald “Ter ir go" in an angry exchange referring to Phil Seguin and Plaintiff's report of illegal behavior on his behalf 26. That the Defendant did utilize that report by the Plaintiff as a reason for Plaintiff’ termination as noted above. 27. That Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity when he reported Seguin’s actions. 4 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM |1024N. Michigan Avene | agin, Michigan 8602 (989) 752-141¢COUNT I RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF ‘THE WHISTLERLOWERS’ PROTECTION ACT. 24, That Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 27 of Comman Allegatims, word for word and paragraph for paragraph, a if flly restated here 25. That Defendant's actons consiueretalation ny iva tue ‘Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. 30. That the Whistleblowers" Protection Act provides: ‘An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriuinate ‘against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, ‘conditions, locations, or privileges of employment because of the employee or person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to the law of this state, a political subdivision of this state oF the United ‘States to public body, unless the employee knows thatthe report is false, ... MCL 15.362. 31. That a causal connection is demonstrated at least in part, by the letter written by the Sheriff where he idewifies these items listed above in the common allegations as reasons for Plaintiff's termination. 32. That Defendant's actions constitute retaliation in violation of the ‘Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. 33. ‘That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from economic damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, back pay, front pay, raises, overtime pay, bonuses, vacati poy. health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, life insurance, disability benefits, 5 “THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 124 N. Michigan Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 4602 (99) 7521414‘and retirement and/or pension benefts along with any and all other compensation and/or fringe benefits provided as well as an addition amount as an offset for any negative tax ‘consequences suffered as a result of recovery. 34, That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful action, Plaintf has sutfered and continues to sutter from non-economic damages, including, but not limited to emotional distress, mental anguish, shock, ‘ight, humiliation, embarrassment, depression, anxiety, nervousness, disruption of lifestyle, and denial of social pleasures. 35. That Plaintiff hereby claims the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees, pursuant to MCL 15.364. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor in an moult iAlEREESNOP TWENTY-FIVE STHOUSANDY (OETA RS WDR000100) ia WAN to cose Best, and ancy fees alongs any! and all legal andor equitable elie this Cou dees jist" Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 15,2019 By: TR. (P3456) ‘Attorneys for Plaintif? 1024 N. Michigan Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48602 (089) 752-1414 6 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Spin, Meipn 44602 | (89) 752-146DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY. NOW COMES Plaintiff, TFRRY KING, by and through his attomeys, THE MASTROMARCO FIRM, and hereby demands a tial by jury on all of the above issues, unless othe expressly waived. Respectfully submited, ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM VICTOR JAMASTROM (34564) nL ruia eno “Attomeys for PlaintifT 1024 N. Michigan Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48602 (989) 752-1414 Thated: August LS, 2019 Ry: ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024N. Michigan Avenue | agin, Michigan 48602 | 989) 782-146